About this siteWhat happens when instructors of basic logic read the newspaper.
Tag Archives: Charles Krauthammer
In their recent book (and in their TV appearances!), Why We Argue, Scott and Rob make the case for vigorous, meaningful, and competent public argument. The competence part of this is the most obvious. Logic texts have long made the … Continue reading
We begin with a tale of inconsistency, borrowing (pretty much completely) from Atrios: Krauthammer. [2005, when Republicans held a narrow majority in the Senate] Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist seems intent on passing a procedural ruling to prevent judicial filibusters. … … Continue reading
If there is a logic to the arguments of politicians, I don't know what it is. A vote for a politician involves a complex web of commitments whose primary objective is action, not belief. So when politicians violate the rules of … Continue reading
A post or two ago I made the claim that columnists and arguers in general ought to have some lattitude in defining their opponent's argument(s). One only has 750 or so words, so one can't possibly be expected to provide thorough references. The breadth … Continue reading
You have to hand it to Charles Krauthammer, at least he makes an effort to mount an argument. Sadly, however, his effort too often confuses fallacious forms of argument with valid ones. Today's topic: the "Ground Zero" "Mosque." I put … Continue reading
Here's an entertaining misuse of an argument schema (or topic as they were once called): KRAUTHAMMER: It’s only nine times the length of the Gettysburg Address, and Lincoln was answering an easier question, the higher purpose of the union and … Continue reading